Osama and 9-11 Why?

matthew, it's becoming increasingly difficult to hold a rational discussion with you when you keep changing your position. you began by saying:

now you claim you never said that and you agree with me that there isn't a vast network. please don't be a prat.

 

from eye witness accounts and other documented evidence it looks like fallujah will go down as one of the biggest war crimes of the illegal invasion of iraq. while certain individuals on both sides are still capable of showing kidness and humanity - presumably, at times when pacifism must cloud their minds matthew - the actions of the us military has in no way been moderate, humane, or just. rahul mahajan at empire notes has a good account of the bogus 'ceasefire', see:
http://www.empirenotes.org/fallujah.html

tony kevin, a former diplomat, writes in the sydney morning herald outlining war crimes in fallujah in the following:

November 6, 2004
Sydney Morning Herald
Fallujah: All the Makings of a War Crime
by Tony Kevin
. . . Falluja is now to be brought to heel by overwhelming military power. As I write this, the US attack on the city has begun. The message to Falluja from the US armed forces in Iraq and from Allawi was brutally simple: submit now to Baghdad's authority or face attack. . . .

What I believe is then likely to be done to Falluja will be a war crime and crime against humanity, morally indefensible by any civilised standard or for that matter, by the Statute of the International Criminal Court (to which, conveniently, neither the US nor Iraqi Government adheres).

This will be no neat, surgical strike. To get the measure of this, think of the Warsaw rising in 1944, or the Russian Army's destruction of the Chechen capital, Grozny. In 1999 this already battered city (of originally 400,000 people) was finally destroyed by massive Russian bombardment. Today, insurgents still fight it out with Russian troops among the ruins.

Eighteen months ago, before the US-led invasion of Iraq, Falluja was a living city of 300,000 people. Now - depopulated of most of its civilians by intimidation and fear - what is left looks like it is about to be blasted out of existence, simply as a demonstration of overwhelming US power in Iraq. . . .

The truth is that this city, which has become a symbol of Sunni-Iraqi political resistance to the occupiers, is to be made an example of, to deter others. The message the siege of Falluja sends is brutally simple: resist us and we will destroy you. It is the same message that the Wehrmacht sent in Warsaw in 1944, and the Russian Army in Grozny in 1999.

This attack will also violate the rules of war and the Geneva conventions in having grossly indiscriminate effects on civilians and civilian homes and infrastructure. . . .

Eventually, the attackers will flatten the city and kill everyone that still resists in it. Falluja will be the Iraqi people's Masada, and it will sow seeds of deep anti-Western hatred in the Middle East for decades to come.

The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, understands all this, in pleading for a negotiated solution. And as usual, Washington is summarily ignoring his pleas. . . .

An unnamed US military commander in the tightening military ring around Falluja proudly boasted (as heard on ABC Radio yesterday) that this battle will go down in US military history as another Hue. Indeed it will - who can forget the wholesale artillery destruction of that sacred, historic Vietnamese city? "We had to destroy it in order to save it" was the line at the time. . . .
for the full text, see http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/11/08/1099781320025.html?from=storylhs

for an eye opener have a look at these photos taken in fallujah by dahr jamail. they give you an idea of the handiwork done by the seige and the storming of the city:
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album28&page=1

right. i wonder if this person would have supported the war?



see dahr jamail's gallery for the whole series of fallujah photographs.

everyone who trumpets in favour of war should be made to look at these pictures every day.

...

 

OBL is weird and I certainly don't think his marbles are all there.

He demands that removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia because "it's the Holy land"..the funniest part of that demand is that OBL himself is not even allowed to enter Saudi Arabia. He's permantly banned from his birthland by his own family! He's not allowed to visit Mecca.

You'd think that he'd be sitting in his cave smoking his ganja saying "Nuke those Saudi bastards, you American Pigs. Two birds with one stone."

 

kevin miles is an ex-foreign affairs diplomat. and the other two are a couple of 'unembedded' journalists on the spot. personally, i would listen to what they have got to say. the embedded journalists often rely on such people to give them details of what they see b/c it's too dangerious for our celebrity-journalist types to travel to these places now. anyway, make of it what u will.

i think the point is that america started this by invading another country illegally. what transpires after the event is linked directly back the initial illegal act which makes the invader solely responsible for the war itself. this is the logic that framed the nuremburg convictions against the nazi war mongers of ww2. one day when the world is more sane bush, blair and the others will be tried for war crimes in the same manner the german military and government were after the war. in this light this argument here about who did what to whom - and we can't accept this report b/c it may be biased left wing or right wing - is secondary. america invaded another sovereign nation without international approval - in fact, with millions of ppl actively opposing it - so they are ultimately responsible for all the terrible things that have since occured. if you are unable to be swayed by reports and photographs then probably nothing will sway u. what is it our lord, jason christ, said: 'let him with eyes see'.

 

as i posted earlier here the responsibility for the horrors of this war are directly attributable to the illegal invasion. the responsibility for all that occurs because iraq was invaded without justification is at the feet of the coalition forces and those who ordered it. this is the precedent set by the nuremburg trials which convicted the nazis for all of the atrocious events of ww2 because it was their illegal invasion of poland which started the war. the nazi invasion and occupation of poland is entirely comparable to the american invasion and occupation of iraq now. there wouldn't be 'insurgents' if there had been no illegal invasion and there wouldn't be a likely civil war if the americans had not illegally invaded iraq which brought about the current state of communal unrest. it's cause and effect. i don't support nor condone the actions of the 'insurgents' as i oppose murder in all forms whether done by an individual, a group or the state which is why i also wholeheartedly oppose the actions of the americans in starting this war in the first place. i do however understand the tactics of the 'insurgents' who are fighting to free themselves themselves of an illegal occupation, which is something different. america had no right whatsoever to invade iraq, other than a self-declared right of pre-emption (which is the same reason hitler used to invade poland) a justification that is not recognised in international law. common sense would tell you that you cannot invade a country with a huge army of foreign soldiers, bomb the bejesus out of it, kill many tens of thousands of non-combatants and expect to elicit no reaction from the people you have invaded (and btw, how do you know what the casualty figures are? america refuses to keep count of the number of iraqi dead. so how do you know who's killing more than who and how does this support your argument anyway? if the 'insurgent' reaction to an invasion causes more deaths than the invasion itself this in no way mitigates against the illegality or culpability of the side who started the war in the first place as the precedent of nuremberg establishes). your argument about the insurgents being foreigners is fanciful. the entire coalition of the willing are made up of foreign insurgents for god's sake: americans, japanese, british, australians etc, so by your logic it's ok for foreign powers to invade a sovereign nation but it's despicable if that sovereign nation recruits foreign fighters to defend itself and repel the invasion. that is quite illogical and entirely unrealistic.

well that's too bad if it annoyed you, it bothered me too. but i judged that it's a far greater disrespect to speak and act as if the dead don't exist. that disturbs me too.

it's a perverted age we live in where foul acts are routinely dismissed as 'collateral damage' of war. that, or the image of such acts are sanitised out of reality so none of the folks back home need be upset seeing the human consequences of the war their country started. it's easy to support a war from your armchair if you never have to see dead bodies or live with the consequences. any sane person would not, in sane times, need to be reminded of this to understand that war is wrong but it's a lesson, unfortunately, that's been largely forgotten. that's why i put it there.

and btw, the cancer council already uses images of cancer, quite confronataional too, that they target at smokers. they say it shocks them back into their right mind.

 

I just noticed your other post.. i missed that for some reason.. were you say i am changing my mind and it is hard to hold a rationale arguement with me...Yeah i realise i don't use the same precise words every time i speak.. and it could have been miscommunicated what i was saying..Having said that, i don't alter my point that much..

Anyhoo

It is sometimes difficult to hold a conversation with you when you twist my words and don't even bother answering what i am asking...plus you use your own logic to events and rationalise everything back to Bush..even though your inteligen enough to see that it is not the case.. Conveniantly ignoring things you don't like. Death is a horrible thing , war is a horrible thing.. no shit sherlock.. but you can't just blame who you like, ignoring the truths.

Iraq becomes a sovereign nation once more

But as of 10:26 a.m. Monday, the land once ruled by Saddam became a sovereign nation once again. The chief American civilian administrator was replaced by an ambassador, and as L. Paul Bremer left town, he wished the new leaders prosperity: "I will leave Iraq confident in its future."
From President Bush, who started it all, came this triumphal declaration: "The Iraqi people have their country back."

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/06/29/loc_loc1airaq.html

 

so what is your position now: there is or there isn't a vast network?

in this case by pointng out international law to you i'm saying that the ultimate responsibility for all that's happened in this war rests with the side that illegally invaded iraq in the first place, ie, america and co. i'm not ignoring the car bombings and the suicide bombings but you're using them to justify an illegal invasion and an illegal war, and after the fact as well. had they not taken place then there would be no insurgents now. that's not really twisting anyone's words: it's the nuremburg precedent. now if you think i'm saying that murder by one side is outrageous but murder by the other is forgivable then you're mistaken. i don't condone nor support murder by anyone: by a person, a group or the state and i am horrified by what i've seen done to the american soldiers. it's all terrible matthew. these are young guys, mostly poor b/c it's a poverty draft, who have no idea why their leaders have sent them there and why they should have to die. but the inescapable fact still stands: had the americans not invaded then this would not be happening now. the guilt, imo, and i know we don't agree about this, rests fair and square on their shoulders and noone else's. they can only retrieve the situation, i think, by immediately withdrawing and handing over to some other arab-centred peace keeping force. they must get out, don't come back, and don't go invading other people's countries.

yes but for how long? looks like civil war soon.

 

Ok.. there is a vast network of inter related organisations..not under one banner but all islamic.. how is that ?.

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm



'Unequivocal'?

Key questions he considered included whether the wording of previous resolutions on Iraq authorised military action. But Lord Goldsmith's nine-paragraph written answer to Parliament on 17 March raised no such doubts, stating: "Authority to use force against Iraq exists" from previous UN resolutions.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4492439.stm


Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal. And We The People are not under any legal or moral obligation to pay for it, let alone let our kids be killed in it.

If anything, Bush and his pro-war Neocon buddies should be required to reimburse the treasury for their private use of government property. I leave the question of civil lawsuits for wrongful deaths to the families of the dead American service people, and the live service people still suffering from depleted uranium.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar.html

It is only aiding your POV to come to the conclusion it was illegal .. this is not a shock to me.

...'if you wish'.

 

why are you asking me if your pov is ok?


...'if you wish'.[/QUOTE]
no, i don't wish for civil war at all. that's what some ppl are confidently predicting. stan goff's one of them i read.

 

I was asking if that stopped me from being hypocrital..

Lots of people are confidently predicting all manner of things..

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=no+civil+war+iraq&meta=

 

The Bush and bin Laden family have been doing business for some three decades.

 

i am siimply pointing out that it is fanciful to complain iraqi nationalists should not recruit foreign allies when the entire force that invaded their country illegally is foreign.

 

Legitimate business.. no jihadi bollocks..i suspect he is a disgrace to his family.

http://www.news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/25/wbin325.xml

What are you trying to say ?.

 

from 'uncommon knowledge' the tv current affairs programme, april, 2002:

Peter Robinson: Military spending is simply smaller as a proportion of all the activities going on in the Republic. We've got--during the Second World War, Cold War, government censorship, eavesdropping. Today you have the Internet--flowering of freedom of speech.

Gore Vidal: May I interrupt you on that?

Peter Robinson: Yes of course, go ahead. My point is that…

Gore Vidal: It's much more than four percent of GDP

Peter Robinson: How's that?

Gore Vidal: Well that's how they juggle it. I used to do, once a year in The Nation, I would analyze the budget. And I would not count the income from social security as part of the federal budget, it isn't. It's a separate trust fund--it's always counted in. So, it looks like military is very little. Military is generally half to two-thirds of the budget in any given peace time year because you've got to count the interest on the debt, which is incurred by wars. You've got to count veterans affairs, all those hospitals across the country. They don't count that in. They don't count in all of the ancillary things which war has brought about--the cost to the nation.

Peter Robinson: Well suppose…

Gore Vidal: So it is an enormous amount. It's something like two-thirds of the budget goes for war or things related to past wars.

http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/700/701.html

 

Oh-ma-gawd!!! Details, details! If OBL was even involved at all, he was working for the USA and being protected now, but most likely he's just a convenient scapegoat (read 1984). Dubbya orchestrated the whole fiasco so he coulds have an excuse to go to war. Period. The plot was as obvious as any bad soap opera or grade B movie. Everything that happened from that minute foreward was totally predictable.

 

it's not always easy mate but someone's got to do it

 

Thanks...

Eh ?? How predictable is what you have just said 1984/Dubya did it for a war OBL being protected /working for the USA *yawn*...... It is the details that make your way of thinking fall apart at every hurdle...I am sorry you never bothered to look into this any further than the end of your nose..

Personaly why should i listen to sombody that has waded into a thead and just stated with out being at all specific and just said basicaly 'yadda yadda yadda'... Unite and learn mmmm we are united [talking about it] i hope we learn [i do].

I forgot [bullshit post]

 

Not taking it personal..i just found you rather rude.
Whats 'i am sure neither Earthmother nor i wish you any harm' what the hells that supposed to mean hahaha . I am not losing sight of the big picture.. Neither of you two were talking about the 'big picture', or adding anything of any particular value [not saying i am..but neither of you two bothered two even to indulge in what a forum is supposed to be about].
I know his name could be spelt U..or Usāmah bin, Muhammad bin `Awad bin Lādin lots choose Osama Bin Laden...heck if you wanna take the piss أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن [so what]..

''YA'LL can have this thread. And i am LAUGHING OUT LOUD. Wish you could too''

Thanks for dropping by .. I am LOL..with your ridiculous pomposity, thinking you know it all.. hahahahahahahaha

 

that's right. that's why it's best for everyone to keep out including the cia and the americans. leave them to it. have u noticed how opium growing, now that america has liberated certain areas of afghanistan, has gone back up to record production levels again (see un report 2003)? it seems wherever ameica spreads freedom and democracy they also bring heroin and halliburton with them.